Talk:Mox
Three issues. 1) It is a made up name 2) Has been used since the beginning 3) Actual printed versions
1) all words and names are made up. Regardless of that though, even made up names do conform to regular pluralizations and conjugations. If you make up the word "trozz" to mean "the flick of a finger against a smart phone", you don't get to say "This word is made up, so the verb form is symbolized by a suffix of "tion", so "trozztion" is the verb, and the plural is made with an "ing" for this word, so the plural of "trozz" is actually "trozzing", and finally the past tense is especially interesting, because the past tense of "trozz" is actually "trozz9938fjdldmaddk". Please make sure you spell it correctly.
2) Both "moxes" and "moxen" have been used by various people associated with the game since the beginning. That does not make them official or note. You cited search results on Wizards page "http://magic.wizards.com/en/search/site/moxen?f", if you scroll down, you'll notice there are 14 pages of results. If you had changed it to search for "http://magic.wizards.com/en/search/site/moxes?f" and then scrolled down, you'll notice there are 994 pages of results.
3) WotC has only ever once pluralized the word "mox" in official printed form. The aforementioned, and easily googled "Jewelry Series", in which they use the word "moxes". I have uploaded a picture (Moxes.jpg) of the product at Corveroth's request.
Should the Mox Lotus be mentioned as an additional moxen? The card was made, even if it's a joke that's not legal in any format. --70.190.71.44 06:24, 2 February 2011 (EST)
Pluralization
14:09, 25 April 2017 Hunterofsalvation (talk | contribs) . . (7,782 bytes) (0) . . (Moxen is the term used by Wizards of the Coast. Please use the discussion page for your arguments.) (undo)
This is demonstrably false. Wizards has made exactly one product with the word "Mox" pluralized on it. They were necklace versions of the original Unlimited Moxes. Here is a picture of the box they came in:
Note that they pluralize the word "Mox" as "Moxes". Note that on their site, some people mistakenly use "Moxen", while many other Wizards employees and writers use "Moxes". Relying on one or two employees who have written "Moxen" is not a citation, whereas actual products that use "Moxes" on the packaging is.
Finally, there is only one word that ends with "ox" that gets pluralized with an "en" suffix, and that is the word "ox". All other "ox" ending words are pluralized with an "es".
- Fox -> Foxes
- Box -> Boxes
- Pox -> Poxes
- Lox -> Loxes
- Vox -> Voces
- Cox -> Coxes
- Ox -> Oxen
The word "Mox" is pluralized "Moxes", not "Moxen". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.89.72.149 (talk • contribs).
- On the other hand: Moxen is used since the beginning of the game. and still on the site http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/arcana/alternate-moxen-2010-05-10 http://magic.wizards.com/en/search/site/moxen?f. It is a made up name which doesn't confirm to regular English --Hunter (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Also Mark Rosewater http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/60879447656/why-is-the-plural-of-mox-moxen-rather-than --Hunter (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Anonymous editor, the picture you attempted to reference doesn't appear to be present. Can you upload it to an external host, or here via Tools -> Upload file, and reply with a link? I adjusted some formatting in and around your message to help make it clear where your post starts and ends, which I hope you won't mind. With that out of the way, on to the topic of interest!
- Like any wiki, we rely on external references as our proxy for truth. Here, typical English orthography (the pluralization you're citing) is in conflict with a number of articles that can be found through the search Hunter provided. As the word in question is an element of fiction owned by Wizards, their usage rules overrule broader convention. One of those articles (just one, for the sake of brevity) is referenced within the article. This debate proves that that reference wasn't effectively supporting the point in question, so I've added an inline citation to that article to address the issue. If nothing else comes of this discussion, you deserve thanks for improving that much of the article, and if you think that citation, or my phrasing, or anything else there can be improved, I invite you to do so.
- However, modifying Hunter's search to find articles using your preferred "moxes" instead turns up no good results. There are two pages of hits, but those all appear to be near-matches for "Mox" alone in card names. If you can demonstrate that Wizards does, or has previously, used "moxes" as well, that fact is worth including. Without evidence, no further changes seem necessary. (Additionally, I'd be happy to refer to you by name. Have you considered registering here?) --Corveroth (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)